Advanced driver assistance systems such as adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane keeping system (LKS) potentially contribute to reducing crash rates and traffic congestion. On-road studies based on early ACC systems operational at medium–high speeds only have shown that the system reduces the proportion of short time gaps when activated. Despite the effects on driver behaviour, most mathematical models assessing the impact of ACC and LKS systems on crash rates and traffic congestion are not based on empirical findings. This study examines the factors that influence changes in the longitudinal vehicle control when driving with ACC and LKS. The data were collected in a naturalistic driving experiment with full-range ACC and LKS and two different vehicle brands (BMW and Tesla) in the Netherlands. To capture changes that are relevant for traffic safety, speeding and a time gap shorter than one second were investigated. The factors influencing speeding and short time gaps were analysed using statistical tests and logistic regression models with random effects, that allow to control for the impact of different explanatory variables and correlations between repeated 10-s intervals over time. The findings revealed that, overall, drivers were less likely to speed and they were also less likely to have a time gap shorter than one second in the experimental condition with the ACC and the LKS than in the baseline condition in manual driving. Drivers were likely to speed in the following 10-s interval when the current speed was close to the speed limit, and/or when the next speed limit was lower than the current speed limit, and/or when the acceleration was high. Drivers were likely to have a short time gap in the following 10-s interval when approaching a slower leader, and/or when the current time gap was short and/or when the acceleration was high. Controlled for these main factors, drivers were less likely to speed and to have a short time gap when the ACC and the LKS were active. However, drivers were more likely to speed when overruling the ACC by pressing the gas pedal. When the systems were active, one vehicle brand showed a smaller probability of a short time gap than the other brand, suggesting differences in ACC system settings between brands. In addition, the speeding probability increased while the probability of a short time gap decreased over time during the trip after the activation of the systems. Although further studies including a larger sample of participants and a wider range of traffic situations are needed, the results are useful to the design of automated vehicles that prevent speeding and short time gaps, and to the implementation of traffic simulations that evaluate the impact of ACC and LKS on crash rates and traffic congestion according to realistic on-road data.

@en

This study reports usage of supervised automation and driver attention from longitudinal naturalistic driving observations. Automation inexperienced drivers were provided with instrumented vehicles with adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane keeping (LK) features (SAE level 2). Data was collected comparing one month of driving without support to two months where drivers were instructed to use automation as desired. On highways, level 2 automation was used respectively 63% and 57% of the time by Tesla and BMW users, with peak usage during slow stop-and-go traffic (0–30 km/h) and higher speeds (>80 km/h). On roads with speed limits below 70 km/h, automation was used less than 8%, and use on urban roads was incidental rather than habitual. Automation usage increased with time in trip, but no clear time of day effects were found. Head pose data could not classify driver attention, and we recommend gaze tracking in future studies. Head pose deviation was selected as alternative indicator for monitoring activity. Comparing among forms of automation usage on the highway, head heading deviation was smallest during ACC use, but did not differ between automation and baseline manual driving. Head heading deviation during manual driving was smaller in the baseline than the experimental phase, which suggests that motives for manual highway driving may be attention related. Automation usage did not change much over the first 12 weeks of the experimental condition, and there were no longitudinal changes in head pose deviation.

@en

Automated driving research over the past decades has mostly focused on highway environments. Recent technological developments have drawn researchers and manufacturers to look ahead at introducing automated driving in cities. The current position paper examines this challenge from the viewpoint of scientific experts. Sixteen Human Factors researchers were interviewed about their personal perspectives on automated vehicles (AVs) and the interaction with VRUs in the future urban environment. Aspects such as smart infrastructure, external human-machine interfaces (eHMIs), and the potential of augmented reality (AR) were addressed during the interviews. The interviews showed that the researchers believed that fully autonomous vehicles will not be introduced in the coming decades and that intermediate levels of automation, specific AV services, or shared control will be used instead. The researchers foresaw a large role of smart infrastructure and expressed a need for AV-VRU segregation, but were concerned about corresponding costs and maintenance requirements. The majority indicated that eHMIs will enhance future AV-VRU interaction, but they noted that implicit communication will remain dominant and advised against text-based and instructive eHMIs. AR was commended for its potential in assisting VRUs, but given the technological challenges, its use, for the time being, was believed to be limited to scientific experiments. The present expert perspectives may be instrumental to various stakeholders and researchers concerned with the relationship between VRUs and AVs in future urban traffic.

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions; Innovative Training Networks (ITN); SHAPE-IT; Grant number 860410

Publication date: 4 January 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2020.100293

@en

An important question in automated driving research is how quickly drivers take over control of the vehicle in response to a critical event or a take-over request. Although a large number of studies have been performed, results vary strongly. In this study, we investigated mean take-over times from 129 studies with SAE level 2 automation or higher. We used three complementary approaches: (1) a within-study analysis, in which differences in mean take-over time were assessed for pairs of experimental conditions, (2) a between-study analysis, in which correlations between experimental conditions and mean take-over times were assessed, and (3) a linear mixed-effects model combining between-study and within-study effects. The three methods showed that a shorter mean take-over time is associated with a higher urgency of the situation, not using a handheld device, not performing a visual non-driving task, having experienced another take-over scenario before in the experiment, and receiving an auditory or vibrotactile take-over request as compared to a visual-only or no take-over request. A consistent effect of age was not observed. We also found the mean and standard deviation of the take-over time were highly correlated, indicating that the mean is predictive of variability. Our findings point to directions for new research, in particular concerning the distinction between drivers’ ability and motivation to take over, and the roles of urgency and prior experience.@en

In the context of automated driving, a monitoring request (MR) is a means to prepare drivers for a take-over event. However, driver compliance may be an issue because not all MRs require a take-over. In this study, we investigated how drivers’ compliance with MRs was associated with previously experienced scenarios. The compliance level was measured based on drivers’ eye, hand, and foot preparatory behaviours retrieved from manual video observation. Although drivers showed good overall compliance by looking up to the road in response to MRs in all cases, hand and foot preparatory behaviour appeared to deteriorate after experiencing an MR without a critical event, and increased after a take-over event. Results further showed a positive association between preparatory behaviour and take-over performance.@en